Official Sam Ventura Hired as VP of Hockey Strategy and Research

[inkman]

25 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

If the NHL leaves the divisions as they are we will be picking a high draft pick. We may be super competitive night after night but it's going to be tough for a young team to win.

Which would kinda be the best outcome. God I need this team to win now but if they can compete and grow as a team and still grab a sure fire top line center, I’ll have a hard time saying no. 

[That Aud Smell]

Just dropping in to say: This is promising news.

[Curt]

35 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Just dropping in to say: This is promising news.

That’s all I’ve got too.  Karmanos and Ventura have worked together before, so he knows exactly what he is getting.  With a VP title, it looks like Ventura is going to be a very central part of this management group (basically pushing Nightengale aside in the process).

[calti]

9 hours ago, Gatorman0519 said:

Interesting. Maybe we are finally getting serious on the precipice of the longest playoff drought in hockey history. 

we almost did it with the football team...Consistency!

[PerreaultForever]

So if he's the VICE president of "hockey strategy and research" who is the president of hockey strategy and research cause Karmanos was associate general manager was he not? 

[Ogre]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Just dropping in to say: This is promising news.

A step in a better direction.

[Curt]

8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

So if he's the VICE president of "hockey strategy and research" who is the president of hockey strategy and research cause Karmanos was associate general manager was he not? 

Kim Pegula is President of everything.  I think that’s the right answer.

The titles are a little wonky from an organizational chart perspective because they stick a GM and sometimes Assistant GMs between the President and VPs.

Basically it seems like Ventura is going to be head of all data analysis operations.  That should be for analyzing prospects, NHL players, the tendencies/strengths/weaknesses of other teams as well as for the Sabres.

[darksabre]

15 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

So if he's the VICE president of "hockey strategy and research" who is the president of hockey strategy and research cause Karmanos was associate general manager was he not? 

I'm assuming it's Karmanos. 

[French Collection]

I am guessing here but VP sounds like a promotion, so his previous employer would not prevent him from leaving. The position may be the same as director but calling him VP sounds more important.

Titles…Funny how a VP would report to an Assistant GM.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I am guessing here but VP sounds like a promotion, so his previous employer would not prevent him from leaving. The position may be the same as director but calling him VP sounds more important.

Titles…Funny how a VP would report to an Assistant GM.

*associate gm

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

*associate gm

Assistant to the Associate GM. 

[dudacek]

His work in contracts is an interesting element to his resume.

It will be interesting to see what the Sabres do with what promises to be significant cap space and some interesting free agent decisions coming up and how those decisions play out.

[gilbert11]

13 hours ago, bunomatic said:

So do we call him Sam Spade or Ace Ventura ?

“The Body” Ventura?  Rainman?

[Thorner]

12 hours ago, inkman said:

Which would kinda be the best outcome. God I need this team to win now but if they can compete and grow as a team and still grab a sure fire top line center, I’ll have a hard time saying no. 

You have to be kidding me 

If KA is incapable of fielding a team that’s not in the basement and we don’t see enough growth out of Cozens, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Thompson, et al to avoid that fate, picking high again is assuredly not anything other than a disastrous outcome, never mind the preferred one. 

- - -

We really here again, aren’t we? Literally about to pick 1st overall and somehow laying the case for why a high pick again NEXT year is the best outcome. It’s honestly just depressing at this point. I’m not sure this will ever change considering the willingness on all fronts to buy in.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Thorny

[carpandean]

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You have to be kidding me 

If KA is incapable of fielding a team that’s not in the basement and we don’t see enough growth out of Cozens, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Thompson, et al to avoid that fate, picking high again is assuredly not anything other than a disastrous outcome, never mind the preferred one.

The "best" outcome for next year (assuming rocketing to winning the Cup is not possible) would be to show marked improvement and growth with a solidified (new?) core and an answer in net, but still finish 22nd (11th-worst) and win the lottery (max increase is 10 spots) to pick Wright. 🙃

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, carpandean said:

The "best" outcome for next year (assuming rocketing to winning the Cup is not possible) would be to show marked improvement and growth with a solidified (new?) core and an answer in net, but still finish 22nd (11th-worst) and win the lottery (max increase is 10 spots) to pick Wright. 🙃

I‘m honestly a bit surprised to see this type of flawed logic still exist, as the majority opinion i’d say, to boot  (anecdotally), after what we literally just lived through with Eichel.  It doesn’t matter *how* good the centre is, if the rest of the team isn’t up to snuff. It would be significantly more beneficial, I’d argue exponentially more beneficial that we made the playoffs next year on the backs of our younger players than it would be to finish significantly worse, and get Wright. 

In the former scenario, the WHOLE TEAM IS BETTER 

[Curt]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I‘m honestly a bit surprised to see this type of flawed logic still exist, as the majority opinion i’d say, to boot  (anecdotally), after what we literally just lived through with Eichel.  It doesn’t matter *how* good the centre is, if the rest of the team isn’t up to snuff. It would be significantly more beneficial, I’d argue exponentially more beneficial that we made the playoffs next year on the backs of our younger players than it would be to finish significantly worse, and get Wright. 

In the former scenario, the WHOLE TEAM IS BETTER 

I agree.  I don’t care about getting #1 picks.  The luster of that scenario has dulled significantly.  I would rather the team be good.

I think I’ve said this before, but I would rather that the Sabres don’t win the lottery going forward, even if the team is bad, because of the willingness of the fan base and media to latch onto a singular player (#1 OA!, Generational!) as the answer, solution, or problem.  No such singular players exist on an NHL team.

Once upon a time, the fan base was sold on the idea that sacrificing everything (team success, cheering for wins) to get one or two players was the right thing to do.  I would encourage everyone to shake off that notion.

[inkman]

10 minutes ago, Curt said:

I agree.  I don’t care about getting #1 picks.  The luster of that scenario has dulled significantly.  I would rather the team be good.

I think I’ve said this before, but I would rather that the Sabres don’t win the lottery going forward, even if the team is bad, because of the willingness of the fan base and media to latch onto a singular player (#1 OA!, Generational!) as the answer, solution, or problem.  No such singular players exist on an NHL team.

Once upon a time, the fan base was sold on the idea that sacrificing everything (team success, cheering for wins) to get one or two players was the right thing to do.  I would encourage everyone to shake off that notion.

What is a #1 pick? 

[inkman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

You have to be kidding me 

If KA is incapable of fielding a team that’s not in the basement and we don’t see enough growth out of Cozens, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Thompson, et al to avoid that fate, picking high again is assuredly not anything other than a disastrous outcome, never mind the preferred one. 

- - -

We really here again, aren’t we? Literally about to pick 1st overall and somehow laying the case for why a high pick again NEXT year is the best outcome. It’s honestly just depressing at this point. I’m not sure this will ever change considering the willingness on all fronts to buy in.

If they can make the playoffs and draft another top 6 forward or dman, great.  Maybe Ventura will be the guy who can do that.  

[Curt]

10 minutes ago, inkman said:

What is a #1 pick? 

1st overall. 

[LGR4GM]

34 minutes ago, Curt said:

I agree.  I don’t care about getting #1 picks.  The luster of that scenario has dulled significantly.  I would rather the team be good.

I think I’ve said this before, but I would rather that the Sabres don’t win the lottery going forward, even if the team is bad, because of the willingness of the fan base and media to latch onto a singular player (#1 OA!, Generational!) as the answer, solution, or problem.  No such singular players exist on an NHL team.

Once upon a time, the fan base was sold on the idea that sacrificing everything (team success, cheering for wins) to get one or two players was the right thing to do.  I would encourage everyone to shake off that notion.

If you draft well the luster of that scenario should be dulled but in 2014 the Sabres were atrocious at drafting. They only got any talent because they couldn't actually screw up 2nd overall in those drafts. They then proceeded to not fix their drafting until roughly 2018 which brought them up to just below NHL average IMPO. The real key will be to continue to hit on picks in the teens as we build depth in the years ahead. 

[Curt]

26 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If you draft well the luster of that scenario should be dulled but in 2014 the Sabres were atrocious at drafting. They only got any talent because they couldn't actually screw up 2nd overall in those drafts. They then proceeded to not fix their drafting until roughly 2018 which brought them up to just below NHL average IMPO. The real key will be to continue to hit on picks in the teens as we build depth in the years ahead. 

Agree.  And as we’ve seen, getting a couple highly talented players doesn’t help a lot if you can’t draft/acquire other good players to put around them.  So don’t worry about getting the #1 pick, worry about fixing your drafting.

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, Curt said:

Agree.  And as we’ve seen, getting a couple highly talented players doesn’t help a lot if you can’t draft/acquire other good players to put around them.  So don’t worry about getting the #1 pick, worry about fixing your drafting.

That's why you bring in a Ventura. If he can model for the pros he can model for the draft. Nightingale spent far too long as the only analytics guy without another voice to really look at his stuff and question it. I hope that happens now. 

Otherwise we will get Jack Quinn again because 52 goals looks good! At least Quinn is going to be an NHL player though. 

[FogBat]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

You have to be kidding me 

If KA is incapable of fielding a team that’s not in the basement and we don’t see enough growth out of Cozens, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Thompson, et al to avoid that fate, picking high again is assuredly not anything other than a disastrous outcome, never mind the preferred one. 

- - -

We really here again, aren’t we? Literally about to pick 1st overall and somehow laying the case for why a high pick again NEXT year is the best outcome. It’s honestly just depressing at this point. I’m not sure this will ever change considering the willingness on all fronts to buy in.

Dude, come on! We can't stay bottomfeeders like catfish forever. Look at the Bills today. Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers before Terry Bradshaw and company.

16 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

2 hours apart but yes same time. 

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

You have to be kidding me 

If KA is incapable of fielding a team that’s not in the basement and we don’t see enough growth out of Cozens, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Thompson, et al to avoid that fate, picking high again is assuredly not anything other than a disastrous outcome, never mind the preferred one. 

- - -

We really here again, aren’t we? Literally about to pick 1st overall and somehow laying the case for why a high pick again NEXT year is the best outcome. It’s honestly just depressing at this point. I’m not sure this will ever change considering the willingness on all fronts to buy in.

The original sin of Sabres hockey: Darcy Regier with a Freudian slip, voicing the owner's directive: "It's not about making the playoffs." (2013) Corrected to, "It's not about JUST making the playoffs."

See also: talking about winning multiple Cups.

I can't say the philosophy doesn't still exist. Lose and suffer in the short term to build a long-term dynasty. We won't hang around the rabble franchises that try to entertain their fans, like Montreal.